Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Here is Howard Marshall's endorsement: "This book is a magisterial response to the recent spate of criticism directed at Tom Wright for his theology of justification. He introduces readers to the debate and outlines his position without engaging in polemic against his opponents. This sprightly and gracious, yet robust, work is Tom Wright's carefully argued and scripturally based response to those who think that he has deeply misunderstood Paul's doctrine of justification… This is definitely one of the most exciting and significant books that I have read this year… Strongly commended!"

Soon to be published by SPCK (in the UK, Feb 2009) and by IVP (in the USA, July 2009) is N.T. Wright's new volume: Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Visionand I've been privileged enough to have a copy of the proofs. This book is a response to many of Wright's North American critics and to John Piper's The Future of Justification in particular. It is not a point for point reply to Piper but a general articulation of what Wright really thinks about justification with some hand-to-hand combat with Piper (as well as others such as Carson and Seifrid) along the way. Wright gives a very forthright defence of his position, but is certainly not acrimonious or uncharitable towards Piper. I'm not going to offer a review or even quote it at length here since the proofs might still be tinkered with before publication and I don't want to spoil the surprise for everyone.

1. Outline of the Book.

IntroductionRules of EngagementFirst-Century Judaism: Covenant, Law and LawcourtJustification: Definitions and PuzzlesGalatiansPhilippians, Corinthians, EphesiansRomansConclusion

2. Value. This book is vintage Wright with his easy-to-read sermonic prose, exegesis of the texts weaved into a master theological narrative, and provocative one liners through out. If you've read What Saint Paul Really Said and Paul in Fresh Perspective not everything here is new. However, Wright provides some helpful nuancing of his views and provides further rationale for his challenge to the dominant positions in Protestant dogmatics. Let me give two spoilers: (1) Wright wonders what Protestant theology would have been like if we read Romans and Galatians in light of Ephesians and Colossians rather than the other way around. If the Reformers were gripped by the major themes of Ephesians then perhaps there would never have been a split between Rom. 3.28 and 3.29, no marginalization of Romans 9-11, we would have a tangible rationale for linking the sola gratia of the gospel and the proleptic unity of all mankind in Christ (from Ephesians 2-3), and perhaps even modern German Lutherans would not have been so dubious about Pauline authorship of Ephesians! (2) And, what I've been harping on about myself, God's plan to deal with the root problem of sin and God's purpose to bring Jew and Gentile together are not mutually exclusive. Importantly, Wright communicates with great verve and genuine pathos that what ultimately matters for him is that we do not pursue any perspective (Wright, Old, New, or otherwise) but settle for nothing less than Paul's perspective!

3. Reflections. While it may sound schizophrenic to some, I genuinely enjoy both the works of Piper and Wright. I find ample grounds to affirm and disagree with various portions of their respective volumes on justification. John Piper is the Martin Lloyd Jones of our generation through his faithful exposition of God's word and his mix of calvinistic doctrine, charismatic energy, and theocentric piety. N.T. Wright does for the evangelical churches what Rudolf Bultmann did for the mainline churches a generation ago, viz., showing them how NT Theology can enrich their understanding of the God who has revealed himself in Jesus the Christ. Regardless of whether one gravitates towards Wright's or Piper's unpacking of Paul, you cannot help but enjoy the sparks that fly when these two great modern Pastor-Scholars cross swords over the great Apostle. Just as iron sharpens iron we can genuinely benefit from watching this melee (which though it has been rigorously fought has remained Christian in candour all the same) unfold as we are forced to test old assumptions and new proposals about Paul's understanding of salvation. Importantly we should avoid idolizing or anathematizing either protagonist; instead, we should do what Paul counsels in 1 Thess. 5.21 "test all things and hold on to that which is good". So around January 2009 have a fresh browse of Piper's The Future of Justification and then in February or July get yourself a copy of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision and have a read of that with some Spanish torizo, mango stilton cheese, and a bottle of Spanish Tempranillo! Wright's forthcoming book is a satisfactory rejoinder to Piper and, much like an Aussie Merlot, should be carefully evaluated, slowly sipped, and above all enjoyed!

WTS-Philly grad and current HTC Ph.D student, Ros Clarke, has a big and juicy essay on Song of Songs at BeginningwithMoses.com. She concludes: "The Song provokes a greater love for Christ, a deeper admiration for the land, a more passionate desire for the consummation of our marriage, a more confident assurance in our beloved status and a more patient endurance as we wait for our coming king. Perhaps if we understood this better, we might begin to see a resurgence in the pulpit popularity of this, the greatest of all songs".

Clearly the writer alludes to the Temple. This echoes other lines in early 2nd nursery literature, such as Mother Hubbard’s cupboard (the “storehouse” of the Temple) and the bone (resurrection life) which she sought for her dog (“Gentiles”). “But when she got there, the cupboard was bare and the poor little doggie had none.” The temple had nothing to offer the Gentiles, and they thus remained in their state of Adamic sin and decay. So here, too, one suspects the Temple and its “wall” are bankrupt. The next line, then, does not surprise:

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall

Again, this is patently an echo of the Temple’s destruction, doubtless with the intent of leading the reader to ponder the eschatological recreation of the Temple. Since Humpty stands for the Temple, he seems to be sharing in the divine identity, functioning as the locus of God’s presence, not outside, but within creation. Of course, this fall is an exile of sorts, a removal from the locus of God’s presence. The tension is palpable: how will humpty’s story not turn out dumpty? In other words, this line presupposes what I have called elsewhere the great metanarrative of humpty, not least the promise of resurrection.

But all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put humpty together again.

So the Temple will be built again, but not by human hands. Many have undertaken to suggest that this passage runs counter to a belief in resurrection. But this atomistic reading of the text lacks imagination. Of course, it is the king himself who will put humpty together again, so that the metanarrative will not fail. After all, Humpty is the place where he is resident with his creation. But the failure to recreate Humpty does not negate all human effort for creation, which should be done in light of the proleptic nature of the king’s restoration of humpty and all creation.

As the new year is about to dawn remember that 2009 will be Calvin's 500th birthday. And everyone is having a Calvinfest. So if you belong to the congress of card carrying calvinists or just have a soft spot for nerdy little frenchmen who like to gab about God, then you need to attend at least one Calvin conference this year (they will be more common than Star Bucks on Main Street) and get on board with Princeton Theological Seminary's programme "A Year with the Institutes".

The Princeton site states:

Princeton Seminary, through its Center of Continuing Education, will provide a daily reading schedule and text of a three-to-six-page section of the 1559 version of the Institutes for each day of 2009, except Sundays and Christmas Day, online on its web site (www.ptsem.edu). The readings, using the McNeill/Battles translation of the Institutes, thanks to permission from Westminster John Knox Press, will also be provided in audio format, as a podcast, with sections read by oral performers from around the country. Michael Brothers, an assistant professor of speech communication in ministry at Princeton Seminary, will direct this part of the project.

Each week an invited scholar or pastor will provide a reflection paper on that week's readings on the web site, and participants will be able to comment on both the readings and the reflection papers.

The project was the brainchild of Princeton Seminary's Christian education assistant professor Gordon Mikoski, who decided to read through the Institutes as part of his Christian devotional practice to commemorate the anniversary year of Calvin's birth. As he told friends and colleagues about his idea, they wanted to join him.

"While browsing through the Westminster John Knox book display at the American Academy of Religion meeting in November, I came upon new copies of the Institutes," Mikoski said. "It occurred to me that reading them cover-to-cover from January 1 through December 31, 2009 would be an appropriate way to honor Calvin's life and work."

Mikoski believes such disciplined reading of the Institutes can remind the church of its rooting in God, not itself. Calvin wrote that "we are not our own; insofar as we can, let us forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God's: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions; let all parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal." (Institutes 3.7.1)

Mikoski's project was enthusiastically received by the Erdman Center of Continuing Education, which is sponsoring a number of events in 2009 to celebrate the Calvin anniversary. The first of these is 2009's first global Calvin conference, "Calvin and the Church Today," January 20-23, 2009. For more information on these events, visit www.ptsem.edu/calvin2009.

Princeton Seminary hopes pastors, lay people, and scholars will take this opportunity to read and interact with the work of a theological giant in the Reformed tradition, with a community of Christians across the church and the world.

In addition to Mikoski and Brothers, steering committee members for the project include students Jason Santos, Michael Gyura, Katherine Douglass; Raymond Bonwell, director of programs for the Center of Continuing Education; Barbara Chaapel, the Seminary's director of communications; and Joyce MacKichan Walker, a member of the pastoral staff of Nassau Presbyterian Church in Princeton.

The first annual Australasian conference for the academy and the church will take place in Brisbane, Australia on the 30th of June to the 3rd of July 2009. The Annual Australasian Christian Conference (AACC) exists to stimulate research and publication by evangelical christian academics. The AACC has two Tracks. Track 1 provides biblical scholars with an opportunity to present research in the areas of biblical studies, systematic theology, ethics and church history. Track 2 provides a forum for academics working in the Humanities, Sciences and Engineering to explore issues at the intersection of Christianity and their specific discipline. To facilitate interaction with academics outside our geographical region the AACC has invited two scholars of international standing to deliver the plenary addresses in 2009: Richard Bauckham and David Baker. Brisbane (aka Brisvegas) is a great city and this looks like it will be a great conference. It is sponsored by the Queensland Theological College and the Australian College of Theology.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

I'm glad to see that my good friend Jim Hamilton of SBTS has finally seen the light and repented of his godless affection for NFL and has taken to rugby (rugby is played by real men as opposed to NFL which is played by pillow biting nancy boys with helmuts). In fact, he now plays for Edinburgh and Scotland. According to the Telegraph newspaper he's ready for a tall order in up and coming matches. We need more biblical scholars who can ruck and maul which is excellent preparation for fighting through the crowds to get to the bargains at the book exhibits on the last morning of SBL (the skill is also useful for Southern Baptist deacons meetings).

Saturday, December 27, 2008

I am a fairly active writer and people often ask me how I do it. Part of the answer is that I've always had bad insomnia so I try to put it to use by writing or reading late at night rather than just laying in bed for hours until the sleep fairy knocks me over the head. However, since having viral meningitus last August I've found it easier to sleep at night as my energy levels around 1.00 a.m. are not what they used to be. But my good friend Scot McKnight has put me onto a Time Magazine article which suggests that if I don't sleep more, I'm going to have a heart attack one day. So I'm off to sleepy boboes!

If you are Ph.D candidate (esp. in the UK) there is alot you should do in preparation for your viva. Now at the University of Queensland where I studied they did not hold a viva vox as part of the examination process for the Ph.D degree. Still, I've been involved in several vivas now as an examiner and I have some advice that you should heed:

1. Make sure you understand the examination process and the viva. Most universities should brief you on this, but if they don't, make the effort to know what the process, rules, and possible results will be.

2. Re-read your thesis several times. Read it from the perspective of your worst-case-examiner. For me, and I did the historical Jesus and the Gentiles with a Wrightesque perspective, I imagined Bob Funk as my examiner. [I owe this advice to Bob Webb].

3. Rehearse your viva either with your supervisor or with a friend who knows your work well enough. A mock viva can be one of the best things you do before the event.

4. In your viva, be confident, don't get aggressive or defensive, don't waffle, and don't be afraid to say "I don't know". Stick to your guns where possible, but if you know that you've been bested on some point (hopefully a minor one), gracefully concede.

5. Finally, and this is my pet hate, make sure you can read the texts in the original languages. In vivas that I do, I always get students to translate some of the primary source material that they've been working with (I know other examiners do it too). So if you're doing 1 Corinthians, Matthew, or Revelation, you should be able to read the Greek text from whoa to go as if it were English! I've done a few vivas now where the student had struggled to read Greek texts that they were working on. Now if you struggle with Greek then you should not be in a Ph.D programme, but if you did fool them on your Greek profficiency in your admission, then you should be working your butt off to bring your Greek or Hebrew up to speed. So with that advice in hand, I swear before blessed Benny 16 that I will slap in the face with a soggy fish the next Ph.D student I orally examine who cannot translate thlipsis!

Maybe I'm a bit late on this, but the PBS documentary From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians is now available on-line. Not a bad doco; sober commentary, narrator referees some of the competing views, no crank scholars, and good visuals.

Friday, December 26, 2008

I have struggled to pray consistently since moving out of church ministry and into academics. I don't mean when I was in full-time church ministry prayer was an easy discipline for me; it never has been. But prayer seemed much more central to my vocation then and I was intentional about my prayer life. Once I stepped out of vocational church ministry my prayer life took a big hit and unfortunately it has yet to recover.

I have found there are so many activities that take me away from praying. To be honest, it would be more accurate to say there are so many other pursuits I choose over praying. It is an issue of priority. I would rather begin reading the latest important article or book, write a paragraph or two, practice my Hebrew or German, revise a course syllabus or blog. I so often choose to do something other than pray. By this choice I deem the other things more necessary. This tendency isn't because I don't know the importance of prayer or know how to pray. It's not a matter of poor theology or lack of skill. No. My problem isn't what I don't know, its simply that I don't pray.

I recommend the book Prayer Coach because it is just the kind of book I need. It's not a book so much about theology or skill, although both are adequately represented, as it is a book about the praying. Perhaps Bill Hybels's blurb says it best: "This book had a singular effect on me. It made me want to pray more".

I recommend this book for a personal reason as well. The author Jim Nicodem is a personal and dear friend of mine and my pastor. I have an up close and personal knowledge of the man behind the book. Jim is the founding pastor of Christ Community Church in the suburbs of Chicago and not only was I on his ministry staff in the late nineties, we continue to call CCC our church home. For more than a decade I have come to know that Jim is a pray-er. A Wheaton and TEDS (MDiv & DMin) graduate, Jim is an intellectual. But his passion is not theory; it is practice. Jim is passionate about and gifted at teaching the Bible. More than anything, however, Jim wants folks to live the teaching they know. Over lunch recently I told him that I really appreciate the tactility of his teaching (I don't think I put it like that over lunch). And it is just the kind of preaching/teaching I need to hear. While I am often content to think theoretically, he has little patience for mere intellectual gymnastics. I need this kind of influence in my life. I hope this book is the first of many from his pen or is it keyboard.

It is important to put the book in its proper context however, so the reader has the right expectations when picking it up. Jim's book is squarely in the evangelical pietistic stream of the Protestant faith. For example, there is no attempt to put his approach to prayer in the context of the wider prayer traditions of the Church, although reflecting many of the same priorities, e.g. "Patterns" (ch. 3). For these one should consult either

Yet, Jim's interest is not this context and his work should not be judged for its omission. Rather Jim brings to bear on the topic of the practice of prayer in very real-concrete discussions both his over a quarter-century's experience as a pastor and more importantly his almost a half-century's walk with Christ. His writing is personally revealing and engaging to boot.

The book is divided into four parts: (1) The Busters. Here Jim discusses several obstacles to praying. On list are things like not planning to pray, sin in the life of a believer, and a lack of passion. (2) The Basics. Here Jim discusses the importance of patterns in praying, responding to promptings and the need for a passionate speech when praying. (3) The Building Blocks. In this section, Jim develops his own and improved form of the well-known ACTS (Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving and Supplication). His is CHAT: Confess, Honor, Ask and Thank. Perhaps the most important point is that his list is comprised of verbs implying the importance of action. (4) The Beneficiaries. Jim discusses five categories of persons that will be affected by our prayers: our children, church leaders, accountability partners and Satan. There is a useful appendix of biblical names, titles and attributes of God for use in honoring God.

The only disappointing part of the book for me, and only because I am a Bobby Bowden fan, is Bowden's foreward. When one has to say, "That's enough about me; now on to this book", with only five lines to go, there is something slightly awry. Nevertheless, Go FSU (Florida State University)! They play in a bowl game today against the University of Wisconsin.

Thanks to Archaic Christianity, I found these interesting quotes from Augustine's On Christian Doctrine book 2 on Bible translation, the importance of study of the biblical languages, and the Septuagint.

6. And hence it happened that even Holy Scripture, which brings a remedy for the terrible diseases of the human will, being at first set forth in one language, by means of which it could at the fit season be disseminated through the whole world, was interpreted into various tongues, and spread far and wide, and thus became known to the nations for their salvation. And in reading it, men seek nothing more than to find out the thought and will of those by whom it was written, and through these to find out the will of God, in accordance with which they believe these men to have spoken.

16. The great remedy for ignorance of proper signs is knowledge of languages. And men who speak the Latin tongue, of whom are those I have undertaken to instruct, need two other languages for the knowledge of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, that they may have recourse to the original texts if the endless diversity of the Latin translators throw them into doubt. Although, indeed, we often find Hebrew words untranslated in the books as for example, Amen, Halleluia, Racha, Hosanna, and others of the same kind. Some of these, although they could have been translated, have been preserved in their original form on account of the more sacred authority that attaches to it, as for example, Amen and Halleluia. Some of them, again, are said to be untranslatable into another tongue, of which the other two I have mentioned are examples. For in some languages there are words that cannot be translated into the idiom of another language. And this happens chiefly in the case of interjections, which are words that express rather an emotion of the mind than any part of a thought we have in our mind. And the two given above are said to be of this kind, Racha expressing the cry of an angry man, Hosanna that of a joyful man. But the knowledge of these languages is necessary, not for the sake of a few words like these which it is very easy to mark and to ask about, but, as has been said, on account of the diversities among translators. For the translations of the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the early days of the faith every man who happened to get his hands upon a Greek manuscript, and who thought he had any knowledge, were it ever so little, of the two languages, ventured upon the work of translation.

22. Now among translations themselves the Itala is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression. And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is pre-eminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation, that among that number of men there was but one voice. And if, as is reported, and as many not unworthy of confidence assert,(2) they were separated during the work of translation, each man being in a cell by himself, and yet nothing was found in the manuscript of any one of them that was not found in the same words and in the same order of words in all the rest, who dares put anything in comparison with an authority like this, not to speak of preferring anything to it? And even if they conferred together with the result that a unanimous agreement sprang out of the common labor and judgment of them all; even so, it would not be right or becoming for any one man, whatever his experience, to aspire to correct the unanimous opinion of many venerable and learned men. Wherefore, even if anything is found in the original Hebrew in a different form from that in which these men have expressed it, I think we must give way to the dispensation of Providence which used these men to bring it about, that books which the Jewish race were unwilling, either from religious scruple or from jealousy, to make known to other nations, were, with the assistance of the power of King Ptolemy, made known so long beforehand to the nations which in the future were to believe in the Lord. And thus it is possible that they translated in such a way as the Holy Spirit, who worked in them and had given them all one voice, thought most suitable for the Gentiles. But nevertheless, as I said above, a comparison of those translators also who have kept most closely to the words, is often not without value as a help to the clearing up of the meaning. The Latin texts, therefore, of the Old Testament are, as I was about to say, to be corrected if necessary by the authority of the Greeks, and especially by that of those who, though they were seventy in number, are said to have translated as with one voice. As to the books of the New Testament, again, if any perplexity arises from the diversities of the Latin texts, we must of course yield to the Greek, especially those that are found in the churches of greater learning and research.

Note in this last quote, Augustine asserts the inspiration of the Septuagint as a Bible specifically for the nations. What is more, Augustine's version of the superiority of the Greek texts over the Latin witnesses is the exact opposite of Ambrosiaster.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Jason Hood, Ph.D student at HTC, is preparing for his viva and has decided to explain his thesis on Matthew's genealogy to his oral examiners via the medium of song (personally, I'd like to see him do it through the medium of interpretive dance, but that's for him to decide). Any way, here's Jason's thesis set to music:

Just kidding, it's not really Jason (though it does look a bit like him), but this you-tube clip (HT Justin Taylor) reminded me of Jason anyways!

Sunday, December 21, 2008

A recent Eerdmans volume from a series of interdisciplinary seminars held at the Centre for Theological Inquiry (Princeton) is Seeking the Identity of Jesus edited by Beverly Gaventa and Richard Hays. It includes sections on "Sources and Methods", "The Testimony of the Biblical Witness", "the Testimony of the Church", and "Epilogue: Who is Jesus Christ for us Today?". In the opening chapter, "Seeking the Identity of Jesus", Gaventa and Hays begin by examining the conflicting images of Jesus in scholarship and culture including the personal saviour Jesus and the Jesus of liberal theologies related to the Jesus Seminar and Gnostic spiritualities. I liked this quote about the Jesus Seminar: "This portrait was of a strikingly non-Jewish Jesus, a laconic wandering sage who loved witty aphorisms but had no interest in Israel's heritage or destiny, and no interest in leading a new religious movement" (p. 2). Amen! The Identity of Jesus Project at CTI, in contrast to the Jesus Seminar, came to believe that: "Jesus is best understood not by separting him from canon and creed but by investigating the ways in which the church's canon and creed provide the distinctive clarification of his identity. The church's ancient ecumenical creeds are not artificial impositions of Scripture but interpretative summaries of the biblical narratives. Therefore, they offer us an overarching sense of the meaning of the whole Bible, and of Jesus' place within that story" (p. 5). The highlight of the chapter is Hays and Gaventa's listing of the convergences between the various contributors: (1) Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew; (2) The identity of Jesus is reliably attested and known in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; (3) The Entirety of the canonical witness is indispensable to a faithful rendering of the figure of Jesus; (4) In order to understand the identity of Jesus rightly, the church must constantly engage in the practice of deep, sustained reading of these texts; (5) To come to grips with the identity of Jesus, we must know him as he is presented to us throught the medium of narrative; (6) The trajectory begun within the New Testament of interpreting Jesus' identity in and for the church has continued through Christian history; (7) Because Jesus remains a living presence, he can be encountered in the community of his people, the body of Christ; (8) Jesus is a disturbing destabilizing figure; and (9) The identity of Jesus is something that must be learned through long term discipline. So far it's a great book and I'll blog on anything more interesting that I come across.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Before my ministry in biblical studies and before my time as a paratrooper/military intelligence operator, I was a budding lyricist who wanted to write musicals for the Westend and Broadway. So I've always loved musical threatre, esp. that with religious significance. I've always said that Jesus Christ Superstar is Rudolf Bultmann set to music! Any ways, I've seen numerous productions of JCS and the most "interesting" portrayal of Pontius Pilate comes from the 2000 TV version. Here Pilate looks like a Neo-Nazi from a gay bar (i.e. the blue oyster bar - James Crossley told me about it). Speaking of James, I might even think of proposing a paper on JCS and Bultmann to the international SBL section on "Bible and Music" which he co-chairs.

I am reading the recent biography on George Ladd, A Place at the Table: George Eldon Ladd and the Rehabilitation of Evangelical Scholarship in America. My co-blogger reviewed the book on the blog back in June. See his post for a full review of the book. Here I want to reflect on his intense struggle to be recognized, affirmed and significant. While the accuracy of D'Elia's portrait of Ladd will be for others to decide, the story D'Elia tells is both compelling and dare I say common. D'Elia describes Ladd's struggle with his own inadequacies as a "wound that had existed in Ladd's psyche from his earliest days, one that had grown virtually unabated during his adult life" (p. 180). This wound became nearly mortal after receiving a negative review of his 1963 book Jesus and the Kingdom by Norman Perrin. As D'Elia describes it, this event was a turning point in Ladd's academic life and a self-preceived failure from which he never recovered.

What drives us in our study? What compels us to earn MA's, ThM's and Ph.D.'s? What motivates us to write and present and publish? If I am honest I have been driven by much deep things than a quest for truth or a historical interest or even a spiritual hunger. While all these play a part in my motivation, a more profound and often unrecognized force is at work: my own insecurity and need to be significant. My need to be recognized and affirmed and to be viewed as a contributor. I can say that I understand why Ladd was so devastated by Perrin's negative review. I too feel the tendency within myself to be obsessive about the reaction of others. I too know the emotional ups and downs associated with scholarly acceptance.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Longenecker does better than either the traditional or New Perspective in analyzing the "supposed" tension with Paul's Jewish heritage, that is at least in one place in his little book on Paul--his view on the law and the work of Christ, for example, is not consistent with this however (pp. 93-96).

Rather than a tension with the legalistic, works-based religion of Judaism in view of the gracious message of the Gospel (traditional) or the nationalistic and ethno-centric religion of Judaism in view of the universal and transcultural Gospel (NP), Longenecker said it was a tension of eschatological fulfillment. He writes:

The primary tension of Judaism, which dominates all the Old Testament and Jewish thought generally, is that of covenant promise and anticipated fulfillment. The religion of Israel is a religion of promise, with consummation reserved for the coming of the Messiah and the Messianic Age. And it was this tension, rather than any having to do with ethics, motivation or universalism, which Paul found resolved in commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as God's promised Messiah -- the Messiah rejected, crucified, risen and now exalted.

The prestigious Gifford Lectures, which are held at the four ancient Scottish universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrews and Aberdeen, were established under the will of Adam Lord Gifford (1820-1887), a Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland. His bequest allows the University to invite notable scholars to deliver public lectures on natural theology. Since the first lecture in 1888, Gifford Lecturers have been recognized as pre-eminent thinkers in their respective fields. Among the many gifted lecturers are Hannah Arendt, Niels Bohr, Etienne Gilson, Werner Heisenberg, William James, Max Mueller, Iris Murdoch, Reinhold Niebuhr, Albert Schweitzer and Alfred North Whitehead.

The 2009 Giffords will be delivered by Alister McGrath, Professor of Theology, Religion and Education at King's College, London. Professor McGrath's series is entitled A Fine-Tuned Universe: Science, Theology and the Quest for Meaning and will look at some of the deepest questions of life in a stimulating and controversial way.

All six lectures will take place in King's College in Aberdeen Centre at 6pm on the following dates: 10th, 12th, 17th, 19th, 24th & 26th of February. For further details on the lecture series and Professor McGrath himself, please go to www.abdn.ac.uk/gifford and http://www.abdn.ac.uk/gifford.

First Corinthians 15:56, "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law," is both puzzling and neglected. It is puzzling since there appears to be no precursor in 1 Corinthians to the law-critical statement found there. It is neglected because of its size. Nevertheless, the short verse offers the opportunity to analyze in a rudimentary state Paul's law-sin notion that appears full-blown in Romans, and the absence of a polemical setting allows scholars to examine a law-critical statement issued during a polemical lull. In The Law and Knowledge of Good and Evil, Vlachos weighs attempts to explain the presence of 1 Cor 15:56 in 1 Corinthians and argues that the Genesis Fall narrative, where the tempter plied his seductions by way of the commandment, provides the theological substructure to Paul's understanding of the law's provocation of sin. In doing so, Vlachos contends that Paul reaches the historical high water mark of his polemic against the salvific efficacy of the law by locating a law-sin nexus in Eden, and, contrary to some recent perspectives on Paul, he argues that the edenically informed axiom in 1 Cor 15:56 suggests that Paul's fundamental concern with the law was rooted in primordial rather than ethnic soil. While studies of Paul and the law have tended to bypass Eden, The Law and Knowledge of Good and Evil breaks ground by moving the argument beyond Second Temple Judaism to the Genesis Fall account, where the prohibition against partaking of the knowledge of good and evil led to the knowledge of sin.

Happy season greetings to everyone during this advent and RAE results season. I hope the RAE gods treated all you British researchers very well indeed! May I say a special congrats to Edinburgh and Durham! HTC (via UHI Millennium Institute and Aberdeen) faired very well considering we only had 3.6 researchers (compared to Edinburgh's 30!). It was our first RAE and we got some good runs on the board for our first innings.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The University of St Andrews is pleased to announce its third conference on Scripture and Christian Theology. Since the first conference on the Gospel of John in 2003, the St Andrews conferences have been recognized as one of the most important occasions when biblical scholars and systematic theologians are brought together in conversation about a biblical text. The conferences aim to cut through the megaphone diplomacy or the sheer incomprehension that so often marks attempts to communicate across our disciplines. We invite you then to join us and some of the best theological and biblical minds in careful and often lively interaction about one of the most theologically generative of biblical books: the book of Genesis.

We are now calling for papers that integrate close readings of Genesis with Christian theology. While we are interested particularly in explorations of the dynamic relationship between Genesis and Christian doctrine, we also welcome proposals that combine careful reading of the text of Genesis with theological attention to art, creativity, ecology, ethics, the history of interpretation, or Jewish and Christian dialogue.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Can anyone confirm that F.F. Bruce and Matthew Black both served as presidents of the Society of Old Testament Study and Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas? I'm working on an article for SBL Forum and would like someone to confirm the data before I send it off.

Monday, December 15, 2008

A Church of England priest who appeared drunk at three church services and told fellow clergy at a Christmas party that she and her husband were “swingers” has been banned for scandalous behavior. The Rev. Teresa Davies, formerly a team vicar serving St. Martin Church, Welton, Northamptonshire, was found guilty by a church tribunal and may not serve in any clergy role for at least 12 years. She officially resigned in August. “Throughout this process we have offered Teresa Davies appropriate pastoral support,” the Diocese of Peterborough said in a press statement. “We hope that she and her family will be able to move on in their lives.”

I don't think I've heard of such a morally reprobate person serving in the ministry in the UK before. I could imagine this in the USA (in TEC they would probably make her a bishop!), but this is the kind of devious lechery that one would think was confined to pre-Reformation England! Whatever happened to the good ol' pious liberals who, though liberal theologically, were at least pious in their prayer, Bible reading, and pursuit of holiness? Undoubtedly this is an extreme and isolated case, but gosh, you have to wonder what kind of ministerial selection board lets these people through? Read more at The Daily Mail (with pictures!).

Friday, December 12, 2008

I am currently reading through Antii Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (eds.), A Companion to Second-Century Christian 'Heretics' (VGSup, 76; Leiden: Brill, 2005). I'm taking a break from my 'Friday is for Ad Fontes' series for something different with the 'other' side of Christianity. The first essay in this volume is by Birger Pearson and is about Basilides .

Eusebius wrote that: 'Basilides the heresiarch was living in Alexandria; from him derive the Gnostics'. As to who actually was the first 'Gnostic' was a bit of a debate in the early church (Simon Magus was normally the culprit on that score, see Stephen Haar's book on this subject!). What is known about Basilides comes mainly from Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.24.3-7) and other quotes from various patristic authors (W.A. Lohr has collected fifteen ancient testimonies about him [see some here]). According to Pearson, Basilides operated principally in Alexandria and taught from 132-138 CE. His teachings reflect an Alexandrian milieu as they reflect the influence of Philo, Alexandrian Jewish Gnosticism, and Greco-Roman philosophy. It is possible that Basilides made a journey to Antioch (Irenaeus may be following Justin Martyr as his source on this point) and there Basilides may have come across Saturninus and the 'classic Gnostic myths' in Antioch during a sojourn ca. 115-17 during the Jewish uprising in Alexandria (heresiologists argue that Basilides and Saturninus got their doctrines from Simon Magus and Menander who were also in that region). He then returned to Alexandria where he made his own adaptations to that myth. According to Clement, and unlike Saturninus, Basilides taught a primal Ogdoad (consisting of Unbegotten Father, Nous, Phronesis, and Dynamis) similar to that found in the Testimony of Truth and Eugnostos.But like Saturninus he believed that the world was made by creator-angles and the chief archon was named 'Abrasax'. Basilides sharesd with Saturninus that the saviour was sent to liberate people by the power wielded by the secreator-angels. Whether Basilides was docetic (as was Saturninus) is more debatable as the evidence is ambiguous. Origen attributes to him a doctrine of reincarnation: 'Indeed, the Apostle (Paul) has said, "I was once alive apart from the law," [Rom 7:9] at some time or other. That is (Paul means), before I came into this body, I lived in the kind of body that is not subject to the law: the body of a domestic animal or a bird.' Basilides' most lasting literary activity was his 24 volume Exegetica which is an exposition of the Gospels (which Origen may have mistakenly called the 'Gospel of Basilides'). In terms of his legacy, Basilides stands as a precursor to later Gnostic thinkers like Valentinus (another Alexandrian) but also to other Alexandrian exegetes such as Clement and Origen given his mix of exegesis and philosophy.

At ETS in Boston this year Michael Horton gave a paper at one of the sessions and he made a useful analogy of how evangelicals relate to each other. If I understand him correctly, he said evangelicalism is kinda like the hallway where people leave their dormitory rooms (denominations) and go out and mix and mingle with others. This makes a useful distinction between one's denominational setting and one's willingness to mix and engage a wider theological and ecclesial context. In other words, you can retain your denominational distictives and still intersect with a wider Christian community. Thanks Mike Horton for that analogy.

But in all the recent talk about "evangelicals" and the "reformed" I am noticing another trend. To use the same analogy, there is a group of the "reformed" out there who have basically decided to go and sit in their room, lock the door, and do nothing but than rant and moan about how everybody in the evangelical hallway is a theologically defficient turnip and only those in the room with them are among the doctrinally righteous elect. This group is typified by several traits: (1) They are more excited about all the things that they are against than anything that they are for; (2) They preach justification by faith, but in actuality practice justification by polemics; (3) They appear to believe in the inerrancy of a confession over the suffiency of the gospel; (4) They believe in the doctrines of grace, but do not treat others with grace; (5) They believe that unity is overrated; (6) They like doctrines about Jesus more than Jesus himself (and always defer to the Epistles over the Gospels); (7) mission means importing their debates and factions to other churches; and (8) The word "adiaphora" is considered an almost expletive.

If you re-draw the boundary lines between the good guys and bad guys and if you place "evangelicals" on the side of the bad guys, then you are, with respect to your theological compass, lost in a sea of sectarianism or marooned on an island of theological in-breds. Now I know in North America evangelicalism can be an almost nebulous term. For example: (i) Nice people are evangelical; (ii) I am nice people, ergo (iii) I am evangelical. And those who go by the name evangelical include open theists, emergent/emerging, and (heaven forbid) even Anglicans and Democrat-voters! I concede the point in terms of the problem of evangelicalism as a mere cultural affirmation and the strained breadth that evangelicalism as a theological movement appears to take at times. But generally speaking, I think we can recognize that there is a firm and solid evangelical centre that holds together quite well (see the book One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus by Thomas Oden and James I. Packer if you don't believe me). So evangelicalism as a whole is not quite so nominal and nebulous as it is often touted to be by arch-conservatives.

But let's consider, first, that the term "evangelical" was almost a synonym for the reformers at one time so it has, historically, a close link with the reformation, and so it should do. To be evangelical is part of one's Reformed heritage. Second, my dear friends in North America have to learn that outside of North America the things that they regard as badges of evangelicalism may not necessarily be badges elsewhere. For example, nowhere outside of the USA is "inerrancy" the single defining issue for evangelicals. The UCCF statement of faith in the UK refers to the Scriptures as "infallible" not inerrant. At the GAFCON meeting in Jerusalem where an international group of Evangelical Anglicans met together, their statement of faith referred to the "sufficiency" of the Scriptures, but there was no reference to inerrancy or infallibility. Ironically, these are people who are besieged by real liberals (not N.T. Wright, Peter Enns, Norman Shepherd, or those Federal Vision chaps, I mean real liberals!) and they do not associate an orthodox view of Scripture with pledging one's allegiance to the Chicago Statement or to B.B. Warfield. Now, if you ask the average non-American evangelical what they believe about Scripture, I think you'll find that they regard it as "true and trustworthy" in every meaningful sense, but without necessarily resorting to the well-worn mantra of the "inerrant autographa" (though I imagine that they might just as well affirm it even if it's not their default setting). In other words, American evangelicals (reformed or otherwise) need to try understand themselves as being one small fish in a much bigger ocean and not expect non-Americans to line up with their own parochial theological proclivities. Moreover, there are also some things about North American evangelicals that Christians outside of North American cannot comprehend: 1. Only north american evangelicals oppose measures to stem global warming, 2. Only north american evangelicals oppose universal health care, and 3. Only north american evangelicals support the Iraq War. Now, to Christians in the rest of the world this is somewhere between strange, funny, and frightening. Why is it that only north american evangelicals support these things? Are the rest of us stupid? It makes many of us suspicious that our North American evangelical friends have merged their theology with GOP economic policy, raised patriotism to an almost idolatrous level, and have a naive belief in the divinely given right of American hegemony. North Americans would do well to take the North-Americanism out of their evangelicalism and try to see Jesus through the eyes of Christians in other lands. To give credit where it is due, America itself has several great religious, political, and economic lessons for the world, but that education must flow in both directions. The paradox of America is that it has the best and worst of everything that there is about Christianity and Humanity! Another paradox is that America (and I think here of North American Evangelicals too) is the only nation in the world that suffers from both solipsism and exhibitionism! Third, I am convinced that what linked many Christians together was not only doctrinal affirmations (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.3-8), but also a common experience (see L.T. Johnson on this point). This reminds me of the words of John Wesley: "If your heart is the same as my heart, you can hold my hand". Let's not forget that John Calvin called his magnum opus Institutes of the Christian Religion not Intitutes of Christian Theology. For Calvin it was the cultivation of true religion (piety, worship, faith, fellowship) and not doctrine that was the aim of his instruction. In other words, doctrine is not the only grounds for fellowship: experience, ethics, and praxis counts too. Fourth, what is the biblical definition of a Christian? Well, I would point people to Rom. 10.9-10 which is a pretty broad definition. Is there any confessional weight behind that assertion. Consider the Heidelberg Catechism, in Question 22, it asks: "What then must a Christian believe?"Answer:Everything God promises us in the gospel (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; John 20:30-31). That gospel is summarized for us in the articles of our Christian faith---a creed beyond doubt and confessed throughout the world.This is why I am convinced unto the point of death that what should be the defining characteristic of evangelicalism is one's theological articulation of the evangel and (practically put) what one does with it. To be Reformed, then, is to be an evangelical and to proudly and graciously stand shoulder to shoulder with our evangelical brothers and sisters throughout the world. There endeth the lesson: solum evangelium!

Despite all the kafuffle as to why the Gospels were written (ranging from debates in a Matthean community, synagogue expulsions, identity formation, counter the rise of gnosticism, etc.), I still think one of the best reasons calling for the Gospels to be written is to tell the story of Jesus for a generation who did not know any eyewitnesses or have access to first hand accounts of the Jesus tradition. As Bob Gundry writes:

“Why were the Gospels written? A high estimate of historical authenticity deriving from the literary distinctives of the Gospels leads to a further, old answer. The spread of the church far from its place of origin and the dying off of Jesus’ original disciples created a felt need for records. Since Christians had not divorced theology from history, those records turned out to be both theological and historical. Theological concerns for the present prompted redactional activity and resulted in differences among the Gospels. Historical concerns for the past checked fantasizing and resulted in commonalities among the Gospels.” (Robert H. Gundry, “The Symbiosis of Theology and Genre Criticism of the Canonical Gospels,” in The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Tradition Interpretations [WUNT 178; Tübingen: Mohr {Siebeck}, 2005], 39).

Note also the words of Bauckham:

"In other words, the Gospels stepped into the role of the eyewitnesses, which they had vacated through death. They interacted with the oral tradiiton, influencing it, doubtless becoming partially oralized in the form of new oral traditions, but also functioning as the gurantor of the traditions, as the eyewitneses had in their lifetimes, and as comtrols on the tradition, making it possible to check its faithfulness to the testimony of the eyewitnessees as now recording in writing." (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 309).

Thursday, December 11, 2008

My colleague Klyne Snodgrass has written a very important book on the Parables called Stories with Intent.

You would have thought that a guy who has done a ThM in NT and a PhD in Gospel Studies should know a great deal about the parables. If truth be told, the study of the parables of Jesus is one--but certainly not the only--significant lacuna in my knowledge base of the NT. It appears that there is now no better place to begin building up one's knowledge of the parables than Klyne's new book. Instantly it has become THE book on the study of the parables.

One quote particularly stuck out to me in the opening pages of the book both for its style and content. Kylne writes:

The parables of Jesus presuppose the kingdom they seek to disclose. (p. 2)

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

‘New Testament interpretations of Jesus’ person and work exhibit diversity, then, a diversity prompted by varying circumstances – political, social, economic, ethnic, education, religious. To be sure, NT Christologies were not wholly determined by such circumstances, as though the figure of Jesus were made of Silly Putty which the NT authors molded into whatever shape they thought was required by their varying circumstances. Certain brute facts and accepted traditions about him provided both a skeleton with which to work and parameters within which to work …Different parts of the NT give us different Christologies – not completely different from one another but clearly different, sometimes disconcertingly different, and certainly far more different from one another than has usually been though in the church of world at large.’

Robert H. Gundry, “Hermeneutic Liberty, Theological Diversity, and Historical Occasionalism in the Biblical Canon,” in The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Tradition Interpretations (WUNT 178; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2005), 13.

Second British National Patristic ConferenceWednesday 9th –Friday 11th September, 2009CALL FOR PAPERS.

We are inviting all those engaged in the research and study of early and late antique Christianity to this conference. Our aim is to acknowledge the wide variety of institutional contexts and inter-disciplinary research cultures, trajectories, questions and approaches, encompassing the history, literature, theology, practice, and material culture of the early Church, including questions of therelationship between Early Christianity and other religions, philosophies and social contexts both within the Roman Empire and across borders.

The conference programme will provide opportunities for research presentation and discussion and will encourage communication and potential collaboration between participants. The four keynote speakers are Frances Young (Birmingham), Stephen Mitchell (Exeter), Thomas Graumann (Cambridge), and Carol Harrison (Durham). Researchers are now invited to respond to a call for papers of about 20 minutes in length, followed by discussion time.

Please provide the following information by 15th January 2009, to Allen Brent, alb13@hermes.cam.ac.uk or by hard-copy to Faculty of Divinity, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9BS.

1. Your name and affiliation (if any),2. Paper Title,3. Abstract of approximately 100-150 words,4. Brief statement of your current recent research and writing if appropriate.

We would expect to give notice of acceptances by the end of February, 2009. There will also be Workshops for Graduate students, grouped into areas of shared interests. Students are invited to indicate their area of interest and whether they would be prepared to make a brief, five-minute presentation of their work. The closing date for such offers is 1st May. We look forward to hearing from you for what is looking like a very well subscribed conference with some very important contributions from researchers in our fields of study.

According to Richard Mouw, here is an account of Charles Spurgeon's visit to a Catholic service in Belgium, when he visited there with his wife in 1860:

In Brussels, I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The place was crowded with people, many of them standing, though they might have had a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing; and I stood, too; and the good priest — for I believe he is a good man, — preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he told of the beauties of Christ, and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say, ‘justification by faith,’ but he did say, ‘efficacy of the blood,’ which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be in a discourse delivered under such circumstances; but I could have gone to the preacher, and have said to him, ‘Brother, you have spoken the truth;’ and if I had been handling the text, I must have treated it in the same way that he did, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord, — some sparks of Heavenly fire that flicker amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus.” (Quoted in Lewis Drummond, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, 343-344).

Monday, December 08, 2008

I am very happy to quote Koester on the current state of the study of the Historical Jesus from the preface of his book From Jesus to the Gospels:

Isolating particular types of traditions as belonging to Jesus of Nazareth--no matter how critical or how conservative this approach is--has proven to be a dead-end road . . . The question of the historical Jesus of Nazareth . . . should be laid to rest for the time being.

But I have no idea what he means by this very amorphous statement:

The historian can be liberated from such presuppositions and prejudices only by the establishment of a historical trajectory. In such a trajectory it is necessary to consider the totality of the historical, religious, theological political, and social components of the entire history that reaches from the prophetic tradition of Israel (rarely considered in modern studies of the historical Jesus!) and the Roman imperial eschatology to the reception of the tradition about Jesus in the surviving Gospel materials.

Dale B. MartinPedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and ProposalLouisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2008.Available at Amazon.com in the USAAvailable at Albans Books in the UK

Every academic dean, principal, provost, president, head of department, lecturer in biblical, or anyone interested in the role of the Bible in theological education should read this book by Dale B. Martin (Yale University). Regardless of what end of the theological spectrum one comes from, this is a genuinely interesting and thought-provoking book about how to educate people about the Bible and how to educate people with the Bible. The book is structured in five chapters: 1. The Bible in Theological Education, 2. Readers and Texts, 3. Premodern Biblical Interpretation, 4. Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and 5. Curricular Dreams.

Martin interviewed persons from 14 theological schools (Candler School of Theology, Columbia Theological Seminary, Chicago Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Interdenominational Theological Seminary, Lancaster Theological Seminary, Moravian Theological Seminary, North Park Theological Seminary, and the University of Chicago Divinity School). He makes six conclusions about the state of biblical teaching in the USA (but I know from experience that it certainly applies elsewhere):

1. Historical criticism of one type or another is the dominant foundational method taught to theological students (esp. in conservative schools!).

2. Most students are not being taught to think critically about textuality and intepretation in general.

3. Students are not being taught theological hermeneutics sufficiently, meaning that they are less likely to function as well-equipped guides for teaching responsible and creative theological interpretation of the Bible in their own religious communities.

4. Students entering seminary/collges lack Bible knowledge and the ability to think theologically.

5. Students are not being helped enough to integrate the different disciplines learned in a typical ministerial education, i.e. too much compartmentalization.

6. The modern theological school is not doing enough to help train church leaders to interpret the Bible in creative, imaginative, and theologically sophisticated ways.

I won't review or survey the contents here, but I will note a few highlights I found in the book. First, Martin is very big on "integration", that is, bringing together the sub-disciplines of Bible, Theology, and Ministry (or other names). I've heard D.A. Carson say that he would, ideally, like to see a course on Genesis taught by an OT professor, a geologist, and a scientist (or something like that combination). Personally, I would like to see a course on OT use of the NT and/or Biblical Theology co-taught by two OT and NT professors working together. Theological Interpretation could be taught by a triumvirate of an OT professor, Patristic Scholar, and Systematic Theologian. Sadly, it is usually time-tables, hectic teaching and admin demands, plus budget contraints that prevent this kind of interdisciplinary activity from taking place (although I wonder if lavishly rich seminaries like Princeton and Harvard could afford to do it?). Second, while Martin is acutely aware of the value and need for historical-criticism, he is acutely aware also of its limitations and he decries its hegemony in biblical studies education. (Those familiar with Martin's work know of his use of postmodern hermeneutics and reading stragegies esp. in his Sex and the Single Saviour). He offers a few objections against historical-criticism: (1) historiography can neither confirm nor deny the reality of the incarnation; Christians do not need the confirmation of historiography in order to believe in or makes sense of the incarnation; (2) While Christian theologians have recognized the literary meaning of scripture to be primary, they have also recognized that typological or allegorical readings of scripture also have their place; (3) Historical-Criticism, esp. it's post-19th century influence, is a relatively recent innovation and we should try read scripture in closer methological promixity to how it was read before the nineteenth century. (4) Martin includes a joke about Yale Theologians in the 1980s: they didn't actually do theology, they just sat around talking about what theology would look like if one were to do theology (I put that joke in for Ben Myers)! (5) On rejecting the modernist approach to the Bible: "The idea that the instability of the Greek wording of the New Testament throws up an insurmountable obstacle to faith in the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation is the product of a particular modern view of books and textuality" (p. 79). (6) I like the remark of Margaret Mitchell (Chicago Div School) who said that she feared the ideal of the learned clergy is gradually being replaced by the idea of the therapeutic clergy, oh yeah, I know that feeling (p. 94). (7) His own strategy is: (a) teach historical criticism, but as one way among other ways of reading; (b) Retain the expertise of different disciplinary scholarship and scholars, but integrate the disciplines together; (c) Teach theology of Scripture before teaching different methods of interpreting Scripture; (d) Teach theology first by teaching theological thinking and interpretation; (e) Early in the educational process, introduce theories of interpretation, literary theory, and philosophies of interpretation and textuality; (f) Include and integrate aristic, literary, and musical interpretations of Scripture; and (g) Introduce practical disciplines along the way, perhaps concentrating on them towards the end.

Interesting stuff and this gives everyone something to digest and think about. I don't want to offer too many critical thoughts, but just a few areas that I'm more cautious on. First, I think deliberate canonical, theological, and even ecclesial readings of Scripture have their place and they have not really been given that place in the classroom. Yet let's not forget that one of the triumphs of the Reformation was the preference for the story of the text over and against allegorical readings that use the text, and I'm not prepared to give up that victory in order to stand a bit closer to Aquinas and the Bede, and for good reason if we remember why the Reformation began. Second, I have real big reservations about teaching a theology of Scripture prior to teaching about Scripture. I say that because, in the more conservative circles in which I move, certain theologians are given to constructing a doctrine of Scripture that contains many a priori assumptions about how they think God should have given us Scripture, and then you end up with a doctrine of Scripture that will not survive contact with the phenomenon of the text (i.e its origin, transmission, reception, and interpretation). Or else, it is demanded of us biblical scholars that we re-write or even invent a history of the text to line up with theological articulation of what Scripture is, how it came into being, and how it relates to its own context by some theological magisterium. Third, meaning is arguably created by fusing together the horizons of author-text-reader which justifies a modest reader-response hermeneutic in my mind, but anyone thinking of embracing in it total should read Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in this Text? Thus, I'm less optomistic than Martin about the virtues of reader-centred approaches.

I spent all of last night beside my 3 year old daughter Alyssa, helping her be sick into a bucket about every hour or so. Even worse, I now feel in my own body the same symptoms beginning to take effect and the same stomach bug getting ready to afflict me with the same horrid effects. Illness naturally lends one to the reading of Scripture and blogging about it. Before the stomach bug leaves me incapacitated, delirious, wrestling with theodicy, and wallowing in self-pity, let me offer some thoughts on Psalm 23 via Doug Green.

Doug Green is Professor of OT at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. In 2005 he gave a paper at ETS entitle, "The Lord is Christ's Shepherd: An Alternative Christological Interpretation of Psalm 23". Green notes how contemporary preaching of the Psalm gives it a christological spin by seeing Jesus as the Lord/Shepherd. Yet if, as the superscript states, Psalm 23 is a Psalm from/about David, then would a real "christological" reading of Psalm 23 make Jesus the narrator or subject of the Psalm, i.e. Jesus is the one who looks to the Lord to be his Shepherd. Green states: "My point here is that the New Testament's interpretation of Jesus as a Second or Greater David figure encourages a re-reading of this 'Psalm of David' in which Jesus becomes the speaker of the Psalm, so that the words 'The Lord is my shepherd' are his words that describe his relationship with his divine Father." That is not opposed to a reading of Jesus as "Lord", but it shows the possibility of another reading arising from his humanity as he takes the role of David, the sheep.

For Green this reading is possible due to the canonical shaping of the Psalter which provides (or I would say enables) eschatological and messianic readings of the Psalms. Green encourages three separate readings of the psalm: grammatical-historical, literary-canonical, and christological. He states, "Read prophetically, Psalm 23 becomes a Psalm of Eschatological David - a psalm he speaks, a psalm about his life. The mini-narrative of the psalmist's pilgrimage to the house of the Lord can be read as prophecy of Christ's pilgrimage through life and death, not to the earthly temple in Jerusalem, but to the true and greater heavenly temple. For Christian leaders, Jesus is the eschtological David, the one in whom the ideals and hopes of Davidic kingship are fulfilled and (I would argue) 'hyper-fulfilled,' that is, fulfilled in a way that goes beyond the grammatical-historical and even the literary-canonical meaning of the Old Testament text". In which case, Ps. 23.4-5 could constitute a proto-resurrection story as well. The Messiah himself undergoes the journey of suffering and fears give way to hope of the blessed life with God. Of cousre, and as Green admits, there is a certain hermeneutical presumption here. As he says: "For me, Christological exegesis is Christotelic exegesis: it is interpreting the Old Testament in ligyt of the Christian affirmation that the story of Jesus Christ has been revealed as the telos, the goal, of the story of redemption."

First, if there is only one thing you do today, listen/watch to Danny Zacharias' multi-media music video on learning the Greek alphabet (he's doing some funky and amazing things for learning biblical Greek that are so hillarious and brilliant at the same time). We shall have to make his stage name Zac Dog for his singing abilities (as opposed to Nerdy Canadian Greek Geekoid which is less marketable).

David Kirk has this quote from John Murray: "We may not impose upon the Bible our own standards of truthfulness or our own notions of right and wrong. It is easy for the proponents of inerrancy to set up certain canons of inerrancy which are arbitrarily conceived and which prejudice the whole question from the outset. And it is still easier for the opponents of inerrancy to set up certain criteria in terms of which the Bible could readily be shown to be in error. Both attempts must be resisted ... In all questions pertinent to the doctrine of Scripture it is to be borne in mind that the sense of Scripture is Scripture; it is what Scripture means that constitutes Scripture teaching. We cannot deal, therefore, with the inerrancy of Scripture apart from hermeneutics." (Collected Writings 4, 26). I would surmize that recent debates which go under the cover of "inerrancy" are really in fact just the tip of the iceberg for larger more global differences on the nature of "Scripture", the type of divine and human agency postulated in the production of Scripture, and models of veracity in theology.

In this book, Adam Winn addresses the long debated question of the purpose of Mark’s gospel. After placing the composition of Mark in Rome at a time shortly after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, he seeks to reconstruct the historical situation facing both the Markan evangelist and his community. This reconstruction focuses on the rise of the new Roman Emperor Vespasian and the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt in Rome. A significant feature of this reconstruction is the propaganda used to gain and secure Vespasian’s power-propaganda that included oracles and portents, divine healings, and grand triumphs. Of particular interest is the propagandistic claim that Vespasian was the true fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecies. Winn argues that such a claim would have created a christological crisis for the fledgling church in Rome-a crisis that called for a compelling Christian response. Winn seeks to demonstrate that Mark’s gospel could be read as just such a response. He demonstrates how the major features of Mark’s gospel-his incipit, Christology, teaching on discipleship, and eschatology-can be read as a counter résumé to the impressive résumé of Vespasian. In the end, this project concludes that Mark was composed for the purpose of countering Roman imperial propaganda that had created a crisis for its author and community.

Yuzuru Miura, David in Luke-Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism (WUNT II.232).

Yuzuru Miura undertakes a scholarly analysis of all references to David in Luke-Acts, which has not been done so far. Previous studies of David have dealt with parts of the references to David in Luke-Acts, focusing on the subject of Davidic messianism, but it was only the Davidic genealogical character. However, Davidic messianism has another aspect - the typological character. In order to analyze all references to David in Luke-Acts, the Davidic typological character in Davidic messianism has to be considered. Thus, in the first part of this book, the author seeks to grasp the first-century Jewish perceptions of the picture of David, such as David in the LXX, the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Manuscripts, the writings of Philo and Josephus, and early rabbinic thought. Then, in the second part, he analyzes all references to David in Luke-Acts in light of the first-century Jewish perceptions of David. Such a perspective - considering both the genealogical and typological characters of Davidic messianism - uncovers the overall function of Luke's efficient and well-organized use of the figure of David in his narrative to legitimize Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. Furthermore, such a perspective throws fresh light on various Lukan theological issues.

Contributors

Readers

Books by Ourselves

Amazon Search Engine

Bible Works 8

Logos Bible Software

Accordance

Michael Bird as One of the Church Fathers

You’re St. Melito of Sardis!

You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins.

Joel Willitts as One of the Church Fathers

You’re St. Justin Martyr!

You have a positive and hopeful attitude toward the world. You think that nature, history, and even the pagan philosophers were often guided by God in preparation for the Advent of the Christ. You find “seeds of the Word” in unexpected places. You’re patient and willing to explain the faith to unbelievers.